Proposed Rule2022-25341
VRS Rules Governing Communications Assistants and International Calling
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
December 8, 2022
Effective
January 9, 2023
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) proposes to modify or eliminate certain provisions of its Video Relay Service (VRS) rules. Specifically, the Commission proposes to: increase from 50% to 80% the portion of a VRS provider's monthly minutes that may be handled by Communications Assistants (CAs) working from home; reduce or eliminate the three-year experience rule for CAs working from home, and allow VRS providers to use contract CAs for 30% of the providers' monthly call minutes; and allow Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) Fund compensation of calls placed by registered VRS users to the United States from outside the country, for up to one year after leaving the country, as long as they notify their provider of such travel at any time before placing the first such call. The Commission also requests comment on whether any other at-home VRS rules should be modified.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 235 (Thursday, December 8, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 235 (Thursday, December 8, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75199-75206]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25341]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket Nos. 03-123, 10-51, 13-24; FCC 22-51; FR ID 114538]
VRS Rules Governing Communications Assistants and International
Calling
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission)
proposes to modify or eliminate certain provisions of its Video Relay
Service (VRS) rules. Specifically, the Commission proposes to: increase
from 50% to 80% the portion of a VRS provider's monthly minutes that
may be handled by Communications Assistants (CAs) working from home;
reduce or eliminate the three-year experience rule for CAs working from
home, and allow VRS providers to use contract CAs for 30% of the
providers' monthly call minutes; and allow Telecommunications Relay
Services (TRS) Fund compensation of calls placed by registered VRS
users to the United States from outside the country, for up to one year
after leaving the country, as long as they notify their provider of
such travel at any time before placing the first such call. The
Commission also requests comment on whether any other at-home VRS rules
should be modified.
DATES: Comments are due January 9, 2023. Reply comments are due
February 6, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket Nos. 03-
123, 10-51, and 13-24, by either of the following methods:
<bullet> Federal Communications Commission's Website: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings</a>. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
<bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery,
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see document FCC 22-51 at
<a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-51A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-51A1.pdf</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Wallace, Disability Rights
Office, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at 202-418-2716, or
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#33645a5f5f5a525e1d64525f5f525056735550501d545c45"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b2e5dbdededbd3df9ce5d3deded3d1d7f2d4d1d19cd5ddc4">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, document FCC 22-51, adopted on June 28, 2022,
released on June 30, 2022, in CG Docket Nos. 03-123, 10-51, and 13-24.
The full text of document FCC 22-51 is available for public inspection
and copying via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS).
To request materials in accessible formats for people with
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1a7c79792f2a2e5a7c7979347d756c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dcbabfbfe9ece89cbabfbff2bbb3aa">[email protected]</span></a> or call the Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530.
Ex Parte Rules. This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-
disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte
rules. 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. Persons making ex parte presentations must
file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any
oral presentation within two business days after the presentation
(unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex
parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments,
[[Page 75200]]
memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or
paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of
summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with Sec. 1.1206(b)
of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by Sec. 1.49(f) or
for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic
filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral
ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed
through the electronic comment filing system available for that
proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml,
.ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should
familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Synopsis
Background
1. Under section 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
(the Act), 47 U.S.C. 225, the Commission must ensure that TRS is
available ``to the extent possible and in the most efficient manner''
to persons ``in the United States'' who are deaf, hard of hearing, or
deafblind, or who have speech disabilities, so that they can
communicate by telephone in a manner that is functionally equivalent to
voice communication service. VRS, a form of TRS, enables people with
hearing or speech disabilities who use sign language to make telephone
calls over a broadband connection using a video communication device.
The video link allows a CA to view and interpret the party's signed
conversation and relay the conversation back and forth with a voice
caller. Providers of VRS are compensated from the TRS Fund for service
provided in accordance with applicable rules. To be eligible to receive
payment from the TRS Fund, a VRS provider must be granted certification
by the Commission. To allow TRS users to choose among competing service
providers, the Commission has certified multiple firms to offer each of
these services.
2. Adoption of Anti-Fraud Rules in 2011. More than ten years ago, a
wave of fraud and abuse ``plagued the [VRS] program and threatened its
long-term sustainability.'' Numerous uncertified entities were
providing VRS or purporting to do so, without effective supervision,
while using certified VRS providers as billing agents to obtain
payment--sometimes fraudulently--from the TRS Fund. In response, the
Commission prohibited or restricted a number of VRS provider practices
that increased the likelihood of fraud and abuse. The Commission
prohibited TRS Fund compensation for VRS calls handled by CAs working
at home and prohibited compensation arrangements that tie a CA's
compensation to the number of minutes or calls processed by a CA. In
addition, the Commission amended its rules to prohibit an eligible
(i.e., FCC-certified) VRS provider from contracting with or otherwise
authorizing any third party to provide interpretation services or call
center functions (including call distribution, call routing, call
setup, mapping, call features, billing, and registration) on its
behalf, unless that authorized third party also is an eligible VRS
provider. Further, the Commission sharply restricted compensation of
VRS providers for calls placed to the United States from foreign
locations, prohibiting TRS Fund compensation for such VRS calls,
subject to a limited exception for calls placed during travel--by a
U.S. resident who has pre-registered with his or her default provider
prior to leaving the country, during specified periods of time while on
travel and from specified regions of travel, for which there is an
accurate means of verifying the identity and location of such callers.
3. Reauthorization of At-Home VRS Call Handling. In 2017,
recognizing that anti-fraud safeguards and advances in network
technology appeared to have reduced the fraud and abuse risks
associated with CAs working at home, the Commission authorized a pilot
program whereby participating VRS providers could permit some CAs to
work at home, so long as the provider complied with the Commission's
mandatory minimum standards and with specified personnel, technical,
and environmental safeguards, as well as with monitoring, oversight,
and reporting requirements. Three years later, the Commission further
amended its rules to allow at-home call-handling on a permanent basis,
subject to safeguards similar to those of the pilot program. Among
other requirements, the current rules limit at-home call handling to a
maximum of 50% of a provider's monthly VRS minutes and require that CAs
working at home have at least three years of American Sign Language
(ASL) interpreting experience.
4. COVID-19 Pandemic Waivers. During the COVID-19 pandemic national
emergency, to ensure the uninterrupted availability of VRS, the
Commission temporarily waived several rules applicable to VRS
providers. At the beginning of the pandemic, VRS providers reported
sharp increases in the volume of calls and decreases in call center
staffing, which made it difficult to comply with certain minimum TRS
standards. Providers also moved CAs to home workstations to comply with
social distancing requirements and stay-at-home orders. To address
these extraordinary circumstances, the Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau (CGB or Bureau), on its own motion, temporarily waived
several VRS rules, including the three that the Commission proposes to
modify or eliminate in this document. Due to the pandemic's continuing
impact on VRS operations, all the above waivers were extended for
additional periods in successive orders, including one by the full
Commission.
5. Convo Petition for Rulemaking. On June 4, 2021, Convo
Communications, LLC (Convo) filed a petition requesting that the
Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to modify several of the
VRS rules that had previously been waived. Convo urged the Commission
to raise the percentage of permitted VRS at-home call-handling to 80%
of a provider's monthly minutes and to allow a VRS provider to use
contract CAs for up to 30% of its monthly minutes. On June 17, 2021,
the Bureau released a public notice seeking comment on Convo's
Petition.
Proposed Rules
6. VRS providers report an increasing shortage of ASL interpreters
able and willing to work as VRS CAs. This shortage, which appears to
have begun before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, has been
aggravated by the pandemic but appears likely to continue well beyond
its end. In light of these developments, the Commission proposes to
eliminate or modify certain requirements that may be no longer needed
in their current form and that may unnecessarily restrict the available
pool of ASL interpreters who are able and willing to work as VRS CAs.
7. Cap on VRS Minutes Handled by CAs Working at Home. The
Commission proposes to increase from 50% to 80% the percentage of a VRS
provider's monthly minutes that may be handled by CAs working at home.
In adopting permanent rules to allow at-home call handling, the
Commission found that allowing CAs to work at home could improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of VRS by enabling VRS providers to
attract and retain qualified CAs for whom working at the companies'
call centers was not a practical option. The Commission also noted that
working at home could reduce CA stress and
[[Page 75201]]
improve productivity and performance. Based on its experience with at-
home call handling to date, the Commission believes these benefits can
be enhanced by allowing VRS providers, on a permanent basis, more
flexibility to employ additional teleworking CAs if warranted by a
provider's own assessment of the effects on efficiency and service
quality. The Commission also believes that, in general, VRS providers
are unlikely to add more teleworking CAs if doing so will detract from
service quality. Finally, the Commission believes the safeguards of its
at-home rules are sufficient to ensure that a permanent increase in
reliance on at-home call handling, up to the proposed 80% maximum, does
not adversely affect call confidentiality or increase the risk of
waste, fraud, and abuse. The Commission also believes that permanently
raising the at-home cap is a necessary measure to help maintain a
sufficient supply of qualified VRS CAs, many of whom are reluctant,
unable, or unwilling to work from a call center.
8. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal, including the
assumptions above and the costs, risks, and benefits. If the cap is
permanently raised, would VRS providers maintain or increase the
percentage of CAs working at home? What factors do providers consider
(apart from public health considerations related to the pandemic) in
deciding whether to maintain or increase reliance on CAs working from
home? For example, do providers consider primarily the opportunity to
save costs, or to improve or maintain service quality, e.g., by
maintaining or adding CAs who may be unable or unwilling to work in
call centers, and in particular more experienced CAs? Would permanently
raising the cap substantially expand the pool of interpreters
potentially able to work as VRS CAs, and if so, by how much? Would a
return to the 50% cap result in a loss of CAs and a reduction in
service quality? What kinds of costs savings, if any, have resulted or
will result from increased at-home call-handling, and how are the new
costs or cost savings of this practice calculated? For example, do
hourly wages differ for CAs working at home or in call centers--and if
so, by how much? The Commission also asks commenters to provide
quantitative data on the extent to which increasing the percentage of
at-home CAs has resulted in or will result in a reduction in call
center overhead costs over the costs of establishing and maintaining
at-home workstations. To the extent that there are both benefits and
harms from increasing the use of at-home CAs, how should they be
balanced?
9. What are the possible adverse effects, if any, of raising the
cap? How is the quality of interpreting affected, if at all, when calls
are handled by CAs working at home? Are consumers able to discern that
a call is being handled by a CA working at home? If so, what
differences, if any, do consumers detect in the quality of at-home
versus call-center calls? The Commission also invites VRS providers to
share the results of any analyses they have conducted regarding
differences, if any, in call quality or complaint frequency for call-
center and teleworking CAs.
10. What specific concerns, if any, would be raised by permanently
raising the cap, with respect to providers' ability to serve demand
efficiently, protect the confidentiality of conversations, and prevent
waste, fraud, and abuse? What technical, operational, training, or
other challenges have been faced by providers, and how have they
responded to ensure that service quality, confidentiality, and other
requirements do not suffer? What specific lessons have VRS providers
learned about the advantages, disadvantages, and challenges of having
calls handled by CAs working at home?
11. The Commission also seeks information on how providers select
and train CAs allowed to work at home. Do providers require CAs to work
in call centers if one is available within commuting distance and there
is no valid reason why the CA must work at home? Or is each CA allowed
to choose where to work, if qualified to work at home? Should the
Commission impose any additional training or other requirements in
connection with increased use of CAs working at home or other proposals
in the NPRM?
12. The Commission also seeks comment, supported by quantitative
data where possible, on whether 80%--or a different percentage--is an
appropriate limit for monthly at-home minutes. Alternatively, should
the Commission eliminate the cap altogether, and rely solely on VRS
providers' business judgement to determine to what extent it is
appropriate to rely on at-home CAs? Is a minimum level of call center
staffing necessary to ensure continuity of service? Alternatively, is
such a minimum necessary to ensure that certain types of calls are
handled appropriately--e.g., emergency calls? Are there other types of
calls or call scenarios, e.g., those requiring multiple interpreters,
that are more effectively handled at a call center? How frequent are
such calls? Would it be feasible to transfer such calls to a call
center once it is determined that multiple CAs are required?
13. Three-Year Experience Rule. The Commission proposes to reduce
or eliminate the requirement that an at-home CA have at least three
years of experience providing interpretation services. This rule was
adopted to ensure that CAs working at home are able to handle and
interpret VRS calls without in-person supervision. However, the
Commission also sought to avoid imposing requirements that impede VRS
providers' ability to recruit CAs from an expanded pool of skilled
labor. The Commission revisits the need for this rule in light of the
ongoing shortage of VRS CAs. Based on the past two years of experience
with at-home call-handling--during which this requirement has been
waived--the Commission now believes that the three-year requirement is
not needed to maintain service quality. VRS providers, like other
employers, report that during the pandemic, VRS CAs have demonstrated
an ability to work effectively in the home environment. In addition,
the Commission notes that its personnel safeguards for at-home CAs
require that a CA must be ``a qualified interpreter'' who ``has the
experience, skills, and knowledge necessary to effectively interpret
VRS calls without in-person supervision, has learned the provider's
protocols for at-home call handling, and understands and follows the
TRS mandatory minimum standards.'' VRS providers must also provide at-
home CAs with the same support and supervision as CAs in call centers.
These rules, coupled with the technical requirements for effective
supervision, help ensure that teleworking CAs will handle calls
efficiently and effectively in the home environment.
14. The Commission also believes that competition among VRS
providers will help ensure that VRS providers make appropriate
decisions regarding the qualifications of CAs they allow to work at
home. Pursuant to the Commission's longstanding policy to allow VRS
users to choose among multiple providers, consumers have the
opportunity to choose the VRS provider that offers the highest quality
of service. Therefore, it appears that VRS providers have a substantial
incentive to ensure that any CA allowed to work at home is qualified to
do so. The Commission seeks comment on its proposal and these
underlying assumptions. What are the costs and benefits of maintaining
a three-year experience requirement for at-home CAs? How should the
[[Page 75202]]
Commission balance the need for effective interpretation skills with
allowing VRS providers access to a larger pool of available
interpreters?
15. The Commission seeks comment on alternative ways to modify the
rule. For example, should the Commission retain an experience
requirement? Would one or two years of interpreting experience meet the
goal of ensuring effective interpretation without direct supervision?
Is it necessary for initial VRS training to be conducted at a call
center? Should CAs have logged a certain number of minutes of
supervised, call-center-based VRS call handling before being allowed to
work at home? Or are the remaining requirements in Sec.
64.604(b)(8)(ii)(A) of the Commission's rules sufficient to provide
assurance that a VRS CA can work effectively without in-person
supervision? Are there any other conditions that may be warranted to
support continued high quality VRS service in connection with any of
the Commission's proposals?
16. The Commission seeks comment on whether other changes should be
made in the at-home VRS call-handling rules, based on experience over
the last two years. Commenters should identify any current rule that
they think should be modified, explain in detail why such modifications
would advance the purposes of section 225 of the Act, and provide
factual support for their recommendations based on actual experience.
17. Contracting for CAs. The Commission proposes to modify the
restriction on VRS providers' ability to contract for CA services, to
allow VRS providers to contract for interpretation services for up to
30% of their monthly call minutes. The Commission adopted this rule in
2011 to end the proliferation of arrangements whereby uncertified
entities were providing VRS pursuant to subcontracting agreements with
eligible providers. Due to the obstacles they posed to effective
oversight, the Commission reasoned, such arrangements encouraged and
facilitated fraudulent billing of the TRS Fund for non-compensable
calls. To reduce fraud and establish better oversight of the VRS
program, the Commission amended its rules to prohibit the
subcontracting of interpreting and call-center functions to third
parties whose operations are not under the direct supervision of the
Commission.
18. The Commission believes that its proposed modification of the
current restriction on contracting for interpretation services (which
would not change the rule's restriction on contracting for call center
functions) will help alleviate the ongoing shortage of VRS CAs. The
restriction on contracting for interpretation services has been waived
on an emergency basis during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the shortage of
VRS CAs, while aggravated by the pandemic, is likely to outlast it.
19. The record suggests that permanently allowing VRS providers to
contract for interpretation services will enable providers to continue
retaining the services of many qualified ASL interpreters who prefer
not to sign up as VRS provider employees. According to Convo, many of
the VRS interpreters it hires through a contractor only want a short
assignment or want to supplement their community-interpreting income by
working limited shifts as a VRS CA. Convo also asserts that contract
CAs can help providers respond to short term fluctuations in both
demand and CA availability, for example, when a weather event causes
both a spike in traffic and the closing of a call center. The
Commission believes that VRS providers and users can benefit from the
flexibility that contracting allows providers during short-time
fluctuations in demand. Does allowing VRS providers to contract for up
to 30% of their monthly minutes provide sufficient flexibility for that
purpose? The Commission seeks comment on its proposal, these underlying
assumptions, and the costs and benefits of allowing VRS providers to
contract for interpretation services from uncertified entities.
20. The Commission also seeks comment on any risks of harm
currently posed by the use of contract CAs. Some commenters on the
Convo Petition raised the concern that relaxing the rule could
reinstate incentives and opportunities for fraud and abuse by VRS
providers. Have there been changes in the VRS industry in the last 10
years that reduce these concerns? Are other measures instituted by the
Commission sufficient to prevent fraud and abuse? Since April 2020,
when the Bureau initially waived the prohibition on contracting for CA
services as part of the Commission's pandemic emergency measures, has
there been any indication of increased waste, fraud, and abuse? Would
allowing VRS providers to contract for interpretation services on a
permanent basis run the risk of changing providers' incentives
regarding the making of VRS calls that would not otherwise be made?
21. The Commission also seeks comment on what conditions it could
impose to limit any risk of waste, fraud, and abuse that may result
from the use of contract CAs? In adopting the contracting restriction,
the Commission explained that the proliferation of ineligible VRS
providers prior to 2011 had frustrated its ability to exercise
effective oversight of the VRS program. Should organizations
contracting with a VRS provider for interpretation services be required
to register with the Commission and agree to direct oversight,
including audits, inspection of records, etc.? Alternatively, should
the Commission require the VRS provider to expressly accept
responsibility for any fraud or abuse committed by a contracting CA or
agency? In addition, what records should the Commission require VRS
providers to keep regarding transactions with and services provided by
contracting CAs or agencies, in addition to copies of the contracts
themselves? What information about the use of contract CAs should be
included in VRS providers' annual reports? For example, should the
Commission require VRS providers to identify each entity with which it
has contracted for interpretation services and the number of
conversation minutes handled by each? Should the Commission allow
contract CAs to be stationed outside the United States?
22. The Commission also seeks comment on permissible payment
arrangements for contract CAs. For example, the Commission's current
rules prohibit VRS providers from providing compensation or other
benefits to CAs in any manner that is based upon the number of VRS
minutes or calls that the CA relays, either individually or as part of
a group. Is this rule sufficient--and sufficiently clear--to prevent
incentives to generate minutes that would not otherwise have been made
by individuals using VRS, artificially lengthen the time of a call, or
create fictional calls where no relaying takes place? To limit
incentives for fraud and abuse, should the Commission expressly require
VRS providers to pay contract interpreters or agencies based on hours
of availability, rather than call or session minutes? Are there other
safeguards that the Commission should require in contracts with
contracting CAs or agencies?
23. Is 30% an appropriate cap on the number of minutes handled by
contract interpreters? Would a different percentage cap strike a more
appropriate balance between the need for provider flexibility and the
risk of waste, fraud, and abuse? Should the Commission direct the
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau to conduct a review of the
level of the cap, e.g., three years after the effective date of the
rules, to determine if the 30% limit continues to be necessary to
prevent waste, fraud,
[[Page 75203]]
and abuse, or if adjustments are needed in light of experience?
24. To enable enforcement of the cap and facilitate review of the
need for or possible changes in the cap, the Commission proposes to
require VRS providers to identify, in their monthly call reports, those
CAs that are working on a contract basis. The Commission seeks comment
on this proposal.
25. The Commission also seeks comment on how its rules on at-home
call-handling should be amended to address the use of contract CAs to
work from home workstations. Should contract CAs be allowed to work
from home? What amendments to the Commission's rules, if any, would be
needed to ensure compliance with the Commission's at-home call-handling
requirements? Because contract CAs are not employees of the VRS
provider, should VRS providers be required to obtain written assurance
from contract CAs that they will comply with each relevant requirement
if they are allowed to work from home?
26. International Calling Restrictions. The Commission proposes to
modify the current restriction on TRS Fund compensation for calls
placed to the United States by registered VRS users temporarily located
abroad. The Commission proposes to modify the current notice
requirement for such calls, to allow payment of compensation if the
default VRS provider has been notified of the user's travel plans at
any time before such a call is placed. In addition, the Commission
proposes to codify the Declaratory Ruling in document FCC 22-51, by
amending its rules to provide that such calls may be compensated if
placed up to one year after a user leaves the United States.
27. The Commission's rules currently prohibit TRS Fund compensation
for any VRS calls placed to the United States from foreign IP
addresses, except calls made by a U.S. resident who has pre-registered
with his or her default provider prior to leaving the United States,
during specified periods of time while on travel and from specified
regions of travel, for which there is an accurate means of verifying
the identity and location of such callers. In adopting this rule, the
Commission stated, in a footnote, that ``specified periods of time''
was not intended to mean extended periods of time, which it defined as
more than four weeks.
28. In the Declaratory Ruling in document FCC 22-51, the Commission
finds that interpreting this exception as limited to periods of no
longer than four weeks imposes unnecessary restrictions on registered
VRS users who are traveling internationally. That interpretation was
adopted at a time when the VRS program was plagued by fraud and abuse,
much of which involved international calls placed to the United States
from foreign IP addresses. Since then, however, the anti-fraud measures
adopted by the Commission appear to have been effective in suppressing
illegal VRS calling. Further, in 2019, the Commission implemented the
User Database, in which the identity of each registered VRS user is
entered and verified in a central database. The vetting of each VRS
user by the TRS Fund administrator provides additional assurance
against payment of compensation for fraudulent VRS calls, including
calls from unknown users located outside the United States.
29. The Commission proposes to amend its rules to clarify that
calls originating from international IP addresses may be compensated if
placed within one year after a user leaves the United States. The
proposed revision would: relax the current preregistration requirement
to allow notification to the user's default VRS provider at any time
prior to placing such calls; and clarify that such notifications may
specify travel periods for up to one year. Under this proposed
modification, the content of the required notification must include the
specific regions of travel, the date of departure from the United
States, and the approximate date when the individual intends to return
to the United States. The Commission seeks comment on the proposal and
its costs and benefits. Does the proposed revision, in conjunction with
the existing User Database rules and other fraud prevention measures,
sufficiently address the risk of waste, fraud and abuse that the
current rule was intended to prevent?
30. The Commission also notes that as a result of the pandemic
waiver orders, the prohibition on calling the United States from abroad
has been largely waived. Is there evidence of waste, fraud, or abuse in
international calling during that period? If so, does such evidence
warrant changes to this proposal?
31. Statutory Authority. The Commission seeks comment on whether
these proposed revisions are consistent with section 225 of the Act,
which directs the Commission to ensure the availability of TRS to
persons with hearing or speech disabilities ``in the United States.''
Other than requiring that compensable calls must either originate or
terminate in the United States, the Commission has not formally
determined what limits this statutory language places on TRS Fund
support for calls placed by persons located abroad. However, the
Commission requires that, to register for internet-based TRS, a
consumer must establish that he or she is a U.S. resident, at least on
a temporary basis. In the Declaratory Ruling in document FCC 22-51, the
Commission finds that one year is long enough to cover most reasons why
U.S. residents would be traveling abroad and is a reasonable
``default'' time limit to prevent the use of TRS funds to support VRS
calls by persons who can no longer be considered U.S. residents.
32. The Commission seeks comment on codifying these determinations.
Is one year an appropriate maximum duration? For example, is this
period long enough to cover students studying abroad, employees on
temporary work assignments abroad, or individuals on extended travel?
Is a one-year limit, combined with other safeguards such as the User
Database, an effective means of ensuring that the use of VRS by
individuals located outside the United States is limited to U.S.
residents who are only temporarily living abroad and have an intent to
return to the United States?
33. Extensions. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to
allow extensions of the one-year limit. For example, should the
Commission adopt an informal process for individuals to apply to the
Disability Rights Office for an extension of the one-year maximum
period, and be granted such an extension upon a showing that the
individual's primary residence remains in the United States, even
though the individual will remain abroad longer than one year?
34. Proposed Exception for Military and U.S. Government Personnel.
The Commission proposes an exception to the one-year maximum time
period for calls to the United States by registered VRS users who are
U.S. military personnel, federal government employees, or federal
contractors (or their accompanying immediate family members)
temporarily stationed outside the United States. Under this proposed
exception, the content of the required notification to the default
provider must include the specific regions of foreign assignment, the
date of departure from the United States, the contemplated end date for
the foreign assignment, and that the user (or a family member of the
user) is a member of the military services, or is employed by a federal
government agency or federal contractor, and is temporarily stationed
outside the United States. If the user's foreign assignment does not
contain an end date, the user may specify an end date that is one year
after the date of
[[Page 75204]]
departure. The Commission proposes that this exception apply for the
duration of the user's (or family member's) foreign assignment plus an
additional time period following the end of such assignment to allow
the user additional time to travel abroad and return to the United
States. How long should the Commission allow as an additional time
period beyond the end of the foreign assignment? The Commission also
proposes that, if the foreign assignment is extended (or an assignment
that does not contain an end date lasts more than one year), the user
must notify his or her default provider of the new end date of the
assignment to continue making VRS calls during such extension (plus the
permitted additional time period). The Commission seeks comment on this
proposed exception, including its costs and benefits. The Commission
also proposes to apply this exception to individuals placing calls to
the United States from U.S. military and government organizations with
enterprise VRS registrations.
35. Should the scope or conditions of this proposed exception be
modified? For example, are there other categories of users who should
be included in the exception? In the case of lengthy foreign
assignments, how should providers (and indirectly the Fund
administrator) be made aware of the status of such users--via an ad hoc
notice from the user, from the relay official or other responsible
individual specified in an enterprise registration, see 47 CFR
64.611(a)(6)(ii)(A), or in some other way? Should confirmation of the
user's eligibility for this exception be required?
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
36. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended, the Commission has prepared the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed
in this document. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA.
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed
by the deadline for comments provided in this document.
37. Need for, and Objective of, the Proposed Rules. The Commission
proposes to increase from 50% to 80% the cap on call minutes that can
be handled by VRS communications assistants from home work stations,
eliminate the three-year experience requirement for at-home VRS CAs,
and allow VRS providers to contract for interpretation services from
entities that are not also certified VRS providers for up to 30% of
their monthly call minutes. These changes would increase the pool of
available VRS CAs and give VRS providers more flexibility in ensuring
that they have sufficient staff to meet the demand from VRS users,
which can fluctuate during a day and over longer periods of time. The
Commission also proposes to allow compensation from the TRS Fund for
VRS calls originating from international IP addresses to the United
States for up to one year while the user is on travel, and for the
duration of their required service overseas for United States miliary
personnel and federal government works and contractors who are
stationed abroad, including their immediate family members living with
them.
38. Legal Basis. The authority for this proposed rulemaking is
contained in sections 1, 2, and 225 of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 225.
39. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities
Impacted. If the proposed rules are adopted, the rules will affect the
obligations of Video Relay Service providers. These services can be
included within the broad economic category of All Other
Telecommunications.
40. Description of Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements. The Commission's existing rules require VRS providers to
report on the use of CAs utilizing at-home work stations. The proposed
rule would increase from 50% to 80% the percentage of a VRS provider's
monthly call minutes that may be handled by at-home CAs. VRS providers
who rely on at-home CAs would have to separately track the monthly call
minutes handled by those CAs.
41. The Commission proposes to allow VRS providers to employ
contract CAs and to permit contract CAs to handle up to 30% of a
provider's total monthly call minutes. VRS providers may have to
separately track call minutes handled by contract CAs. If a VRS
provider employs contract CAs, it may be required to, upon request,
make available to the Commission and the TRS Fund administrator written
copies of such contracts. VRS providers who employ contract CAs also
may be required to submit reports on such personnel at regular
intervals.
42. The Commission proposes to allow VRS users to make calls to the
United States from international locations for up to one year while on
travel and require VRS users to notify their default VRS providers of
their travel plans before they start making such calls. The Commission
also proposes to allow federal employees, contractors, and their
immediate family members to make VRS calls from international locations
for the length of their service while stationed abroad plus up to an
additional 90 days to allow for travel while returning to the United
States after such individuals notify their default VRS provider of
where they are stationed and the length of their service tour. New or
modified reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance obligations may
be imposed on VRS providers in association with tracking VRS users
while on international travel.
43. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities,
and Significant Alternatives Considered. Participation in the at-home
call-handling program would continue to be optional for VRS providers.
The Commission is not proposing any new requirements that would
increase regulatory requirements beyond those that are already required
as part of the at-home call-handling program. The existing and proposed
requirements would apply equally to all VRS providers and are necessary
to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of the TRS Fund by ensuring that CAs
are subject to proper supervision and accountability. To the extent
there are differences in operating costs resulting from economies of
scale, those costs are reflected in the different rate structures
applicable to large and small VRS providers.
44. The proposal to permit VRS providers to hire contract CAs is
designed to increase the pool of American Sign Language interpreters
available and willing to work as VRS CAs. Hiring contract CAs would be
optional for VRS providers. Those VRS providers that choose to hire
contract CAs may be subject to certain reporting, recordkeeping, and
other obligations associated with the hiring of such personnel. The
proposed requirements would apply equally to all VRS providers using
contract CAs and are necessary to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of
the TRS Fund. To the extent there are differences in operating costs
resulting from economies of scale, those costs are reflected in the
different rate structures applicable to large and small VRS providers.
45. The proposal to modify from four weeks to one year the time
period during which VRS users may make calls to the United States from
international locations is designed to provide more flexibility to VRS
users and bring the specified period of time in line with the
Commission's updated interpretation of
[[Page 75205]]
this rule. Similarly, the Commission is proposing to allow federal
military, employees, and contractors, and their immediate family
members to make international VRS calls to the United States for the
time period of their tour of duty abroad plus an additional 90 days to
allow for travel back to the United States. The Commission is not
proposing any new requirements that would increase regulatory
requirements beyond those that are already required of VRS providers
handling international calls. The existing and proposed requirements
would apply equally to all VRS providers and are necessary to prevent
waste, fraud, and abuse of the TRS Fund by ensuring that only U.S.
residents are permitted to make VRS calls to the United States from
abroad. To the extent there are differences in operating costs
resulting from economies of scale, those costs are reflected in the
different rate structures applicable to large and small VRS providers.
46. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With, the
Commission's Proposals. None.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
The Commission seeks comment on proposed rule amendments that may
result in modified information collection requirements. If the
Commission adopts any modified information collection requirements, the
Commission will publish another notice in the Federal Register inviting
the public to comment on the requirements, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act. Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. In addition,
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the
Commission seeks comment on how it might further reduce the information
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25
employees. Public Law 107-198; 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64
Individuals with disabilities, Telecommunications,
Telecommunications relay services.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
Proposed Regulations
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend Title 47 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
0
1. The authority citation for part 64 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201, 202, 217, 218, 220,
222, 225, 226, 227, 227b, 228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 255, 262,
276, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 617, 620, 1401-1473, unless otherwise
noted; Public Law 115-141, Div. P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091.
0
2. Amend Sec. 64.604 by revising paragraphs (a)(7), (b)(8)(i)(A), (B),
and (ii)(A), and (c)(5)(iii)(N)(1)(iii) to read as follows:
Sec. 64.604 Mandatory minimum standards.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(7) International calls.
(i) VRS calls that originate from an international IP address will
not be compensated, except in accordance with this section. For
purposes of this section, an international IP address is defined as one
that indicates that the individual initiating the call is located
outside the United States and its territories.
(ii) A VRS provider may seek TRS Fund compensation for VRS calls
placed to the United States by a United States resident who is a
registered VRS user, if:
(A) Such calls are placed one year or less after the VRS user
departs the United States; and
(B) At any time prior to placing such calls, the VRS user notifies
the user's default provider of the specific region(s) of travel, the
date of departure from the United States, and the intended date of
return to the United States.
(iii) A registered VRS user may request approval from the
Commission's Disability Rights Office for an extension of the one-year
international calling period. Such request shall include a showing that
the user's primary residence remains in the United States, even though
the user will remain outside the United States longer than one year.
Upon approval of such an extension, the user shall notify the user's
default VRS provider of such change, and the provider may seek
compensation for international calls placed by the user through the end
of such extended return date.
(iv) A VRS provider may seek TRS Fund compensation for VRS calls
placed to the United States, pursuant to an individual or enterprise
VRS registration, by a United States resident who is a United States
military or federal government employee or contractor temporarily
stationed abroad, or an immediate family member of such employee or
contractor, if:
(A) Such calls are placed either during the period of such foreign
assignment or within 90 days after the end date of such foreign
assignment; and
(B) At any time prior to placing such calls, the registered VRS
user, or the Relay official or other responsible individual designated
in an enterprise registration, notifies the default VRS provider of the
specific regions of foreign assignment, the date of departure from the
United States, and the intended end date of the foreign assignment, and
that the user (or an immediate family member of the user) is a United
States military or federal employee or contractor, and is temporarily
stationed outside the United States. If the foreign assignment is
extended, the registered VRS user, or the Relay official or other
responsible individual designated in an enterprise registration, shall
notify the default VRS provider of the new end date of such foreign
assignment and of any change of the region where the user is stationed.
(C) For purposes of this section, an ``immediate family member'' is
a parent, spouse, or child of a United States military or federal
government employee or contractor.
(D) If the intended end date of the foreign assignment is not known
as of the time of notification to the default VRS provider, the
notification may specify one-year from the date of departure from the
United States as the end date.
(b) * * *
(8) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Eighty percent (80%) of a VRS provider's total minutes for
which compensation is paid in that month; or
(B) Eighty percent (80%) of the provider's average projected
monthly conversation minutes for the calendar year, according to the
projections most recently filed with the TRS Fund administrator.
(ii) * * *
(A) Allow a CA to work at home only if the CA is a qualified
interpreter who has the experience, skills, and knowledge necessary to
effectively interpret VRS calls without in-person supervision, has
learned the provider's protocols for at-home call handling, and
understands and follows the TRS mandatory minimum standards set out in
this section; and
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(5) * * *
(iii) * * *
(N) * * *
(1) * * *
[[Page 75206]]
(iii) Contracting of call center functions. An eligible VRS
provider shall not contract with or otherwise authorize any third party
to provide call center functions (including call distribution, call
routing, call setup, mapping, call features, billing, and registration,
but not including interpretation services) on its behalf, unless that
authorized third party also is an eligible provider. An eligible VRS
provider may contract with third parties to provide interpretation
services for up to a maximum of the greater of: thirty percent (30%) of
a VRS provider's total minutes for which compensation is paid in that
month; or thirty percent (30%) of the provider's average projected
monthly conversation minutes for the calendar year, according to the
projections most recently filed with the TRS Fund administrator. A VRS
provider that contracts for interpretation services shall submit a
written report every six months that identifies each entity with which
it contracted for interpretation services and the number of
conversation minutes handled by each such contractor. Such reports
shall be submitted on August 1 covering the six months from January
through June and February 1 covering the six months from July through
December, and shall be included with the semi-annual call center
reports required by section 64.604(c)(5)(iii)(N)(2) of this chapter.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-25341 Filed 12-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on December 8, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.